Disassembler
in [Cobol]
|
From: Pete Dashwood on 3 Mar 2006 04:50 "LX-i" <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote in message news:25cf6$4407b441$45491d7a$21588(a)KNOLOGY.NET... > Pete Dashwood wrote: >> "LX-i" <lxi0007(a)netscape.net> wrote in message >> news:7ecdf$440658c7$45491d7a$4125(a)KNOLOGY.NET... >>> Pete Dashwood wrote: >>>> I have worked on many sites and no-one has ever asked why I start >>>> levels at 12. >>> I've been asked about it, because I adopted it. :) I like it... >>> >> "Imitation is the highest form of flattery." :-) >> >> I consider it an honour. >> >> Hope it never has to be used in earnest... > > heh... :) Yeah, if we go back to cards, we're all screwed! > > It's funny - each Friday (by management dictate) we have about an hour of > training. Since I'm the senior military guy in the shop now, I end up > doing a lot of it, and last week we did ECL (Executive Control Language - > DOS for the Unisys 2200). > > Anyway, there's a statement called @PCH, which will punch a deck of cards > for an input text element. The younger guys I was training thought that > was funny. (Turns out that this processor *now* actually punches a > "virtual" deck, that programs can read by reading a device assigned to > "card-reader".) > > It was just funny - none of them had even seen a Hollerith card (or even > heard the term Hollerith, for that matter). And I'm not even that old! > :) Ask them what the term "chad" means to them. (Or set this as homework..) Those who have no idea get a demerit or 5 pressups on the spot. Those who say it is a country in Africa get a pass. If they can name the capital (N'Djamena) they get a merit. If they say it is the stuff that comes out of a punch card when you punch it, they get a beer. (Anyone who knows what the chad that DOESN'T come out, but just bulges because the punch didn't cut the cardboard properly, is called, (pregnant chad) gets two beers.) Those who say it is a guy looking over a wall and saying "Wot! No...." get absolute respect, the drink of their choice, and a salute. (These are ranking officers who were in the UK during the last war....:-)) Pete.
From: Pete Dashwood on 3 Mar 2006 05:11 "CG" <carl.gehr.RemoveThis(a)ThisToo.attglobal.net> wrote in message news:9aac2$4407d161$453db2dd$2731(a)FUSE.NET... > LX-i wrote: >> CG wrote: >>> This discussion has deteriorated to to the point of absurdity. When the >>> attitude appears to be, "My mind's made up, do not confuse me with >>> facts." it is time to quit! I'm done! >> >> What you're missing (or seem to be) is the point of what they're saying. >> They're not saying that your product doesn't do something useful, or that >> you've had customers use it and realize great gain from it. > > I said I was not going to reply any more, but I will repeat what I said in > my first comment about this technology: > It it NOT MY PRODUCT! > I HAVE NO INTEREST, FINANCIAL NOR OTHERWISE IN THIS TECHNOLOGY! OK, so why are you incensed? Take it easy, there's no need to shout. Actually, I knew that from your previous posts. It never was an issue. This is a forum. If you spend time here you will realise that the chance of everyone agreeing with ANYTHING you post is at best slim, and most likely, impossible. I get rubbished here all the time (sometimes I deserve it; most times I don't... :-( ), but it is still fun, if you don't take it to heart. Occasionally serious thngs are discussed and occasionally people get helped, but there are no guarantees... The manners and customs here are those of the world; different cultures, different backgrounds, different personalities. It can be a valuable experience or an annoying one. Anger is usually out of place. Few people here are dleiberately rude and there is minimal flaming for what is, after all, an unmoderated open forum. All of us have discussed stuff here that is dear to our hearts and most of us have been very angry or upset at some time about something. But we still come here and we still post. The good stuff outweighs the bad. Expect to be disagreed with, Carl. You won't be disappointed :-) You have much to offer. I really hope you won't slink off and not post any more. > Therefore I have no customers for this technology. > MY customers appreciate it when I can tell them about a good technology > that will help them. They appreciate that I don't have to be paid to try > to help them. > Sure, it's a good thing to do. But there is no point in getting angry if people ask questions about it or express scepticism. > My ONLY connection to the technology is that I have known the owner of the > service for a long time, since we were both working on Y2K. I know that > he has a large number of very satisfied customers who were very thankful > for the source code that he was able to provide when all they had was > object code that needed remediation. > Yes, you said that. Understood. And it is a good thing to help a friend. > It is good technology. It works. It has nothing to do with OO, I never > said it did. Did anyone else? I guess I missed that. > I simply tried to explain what it IS. If you don't need it, fine. I just > hate to see people bad mouth something for not doing what it was never > intended to do... I agree. That is a fair position. Speaking only for myself, it was never my intention to "bad mouth" the product. I don't have enough experience of it to do that, and I certainl wouldn't "bad mouth" ANY product I had never used. The reservations I expressed would apply to any such product. I think you simply over-reacted to questions and criticism. >And, personally, I could not care less if you don't bother to look at it. >But, if someone needs it and does not, it is their loss, not mine. > That is exactly right. At least you made it known. Pete.
From: on 3 Mar 2006 09:06 In article <46qgvsFcgl1gU1(a)individual.net>, Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: > ><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message news:du6rsu$3eb$1(a)reader2.panix.com... >> In article <46o20qFc3v26U1(a)individual.net>, >> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: >>> >>><docdwarf(a)panix.com> wrote in message >>>news:du5dgo$9b1$1(a)reader2.panix.com... >>>> In article <46mbn8Fbeu63U1(a)individual.net>, >>>> Pete Dashwood <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote: [snip] >>>>>When writing COBOL it is necessary to use level numbers anyway. Why >>>>>shouldn't they also assist in the (today) extremely unlikely event that >>>>>the source needs to be recreated from a listing? >>>> >>>> 'Grandpa, why do you snore so loud?' >>>> >>>I have this quaint idea running round in the back of my head that >>>"answering a question with a question is no answer at all". Can't imagine >>>in >>>what den of iniquity or degraded bar I picked up that little gem ... :-) >> >> My apologies for being so neglectful, Mr Dashwood; in my haste to respond >> I forgot to preface the joke I related with 'Because the event is, >> admittedly, 'extremely unlikely'. It brings to my mind a bit of >> jocularity I was taught as a lad:' >> > >No apology required. Sometimes I provide beyond what is required, Mr Dashwood... but not *always*, of course; the definition of a 'miracle' is that it is a violation of the Natural Order of Things. >I just believe that one cheap shot deserves another. I >come from a long line of warmongers... :-) I am an American, Mr Dashwood, born of two Americans and that's about as far as I'll go in such matters. Matters of ancestry mean little to me... do not tell me where you're from, show me what you are. >>> >>>> 'To keep the tigers away.' >>>> >>>> 'Grandpa, there aren't any tigers anywhere near here.' >>>> >>>> 'See how well it works?' >>>> >>>I have indeed seen the same logic applied to snapping fingers in order to >>>deter elephants. With equal efficacy. >> >> If you are aware of the shortcomings of the logic of your argument, Mr >> Dashwood, then you might not be surprised when they are pointed out. >> > >I see neither tigers, elephants nor logical shortcomings in my argument. >This is obviously due to the snoring, finger snapping, and brilliant mind >which conceived it. And nothing you point out ever surprises me Doc :-) My apologies for being so predictable, Mr Dashwood... now let me show you my tattoo. [snip] >>>> I haven't seen much greenbar lately. >>>> >>>I haven't seen many folders lately. Guess it's the weather. >> >> It might also be the places where you keep yourself, Mr Dashwood... >> different environments might make for different experiences. >> >Different environments definitely make for different weather :-) They can, at some times... at other times sunny and warm with clear skies seems remarkably like... sunny and warm with clear skies. > >25 degrees Celsius in Auckland today. How is it in the City that Never >Sleeps? Awake. > >>> >>>>> >>>>>I have worked on many sites and no-one has ever asked why I start levels at >>>>>12. It isn't problematic because there is room to insert other levels if >>>>>required. >>>> >>>> I've worked in places where Prod Review turned down my code because I used >>>> an 03 where the Site Standard dictated an 05. They sign my timesheets, >>>> they get what they ask for... within reason, of course. >>>> >>>Absolutely... (Hides Jobsworth award behind back and shuffles from one >>>foot >>>to the other...) >> >> Mr Dashwood, unlike others I write code for a living; those who do not may >> have less cause to consider what the one who pays the piper gets to do. >> > >And what if you waited tables for a living, or drove a truck, or captained a >battleship? Then I'll deal with those situations when they arise, Mr Dashwood... simple type that I am I have enough trouble dealing with What Is, let alone What If. >Does the piper ALWAYS call the tune? The aphorism I recall is 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'... but given that one might try to remember that *nothing* is ALWAYS, including this statement. >What if the piper is >blatantly insane? See above about What Is versus What If. > >I used to play guitar and sing in a pub in London. People would often pay >me to play their favourite song and I would if I could. (I usually could; it >was in the days before the music died...) Really? I thought it was so long ago that a musician could remember all the songs because not so many of them had been written! >But there were certain songs at >which I drew the line :-) "10 guitars" and "Candida" were 2 such... (While >these are fine in drunken Rugby clubs in NZ, they are not fine to people who >love music. (yours truly, and the other patrons of a very nice place in >Victoria). Drunken ex-pat Kiwis wanting a taste of home would often request >them. I'd politely suggest something else in the same vein and if that >wasn't acceptable I simply wouldn't take their money. My point *precisely*, Mr Dashwood. To bring it back to the world of the COBOL-coding fool with which I am familiar: someone who signs my timesheets makes a request with which I disagree. I explain my reasons for disagreement and offer a different solution. If the signer agrees I get on with my job. If the signer disagrees and what has been requested of me offends my sense of Professional Responsibility (I have no idea whence it came and I cannot quantify it as a series of point-by-point rules... but there's some stuff that I Just Won't Do) then I most respectfully refuse and offer my resignation. Either they find me another task... or I find me another job. Nothing special, just the way the world works, or so I have seen it. [snip] >The point is that who pays the piper (or guitarist) DOESN'T necessarily call >the tune. Service is important, but so is integrity. Leaving aside matters of 'necessity' and ALWAYS (caps original)... didn't someone just say 'I'd politely suggest something else in the same vein and if that wasn't acceptable I simply wouldn't take their money.'? Likewise, when addressing this point in another posting I posited ''I know you called and paid for the traditional tune to which Hanley set the words of 'Scotland the Brave'... but *I* think what you really need is my award-winning rendition of 'It's A Great Day for The Irish'.'' Now... a quibble might be had over which definition of 'pay' is used; according to http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/pay there are acceptable definitions (2a: 'to make a disposal or transfer (of money)', 5: 'to give, offer, or make freely or as fitting') which would allow for a bit of debate, in that the original aphorism does not make allowances for the reversal of the transaction. Consider: 'Here's my fiver... let's hear your rendition of 'I Am Woman'.' 'Sorry, my sense of humor is so limited that I, as a hulking, great, bearded gent cannot see myself allowing that to issue from my chanter; I do, hereby, return your money and relinquish any claim thereunto. 'Doesn't matter... in that I made the transfer (2a) and gave/offered (5) I have, by defnintion, paid you and 'he who pays the piper calls the tune'; get a-pumpin', laddie!' > >Of the two, it is a close call, but I would favour integrity. (The reason is >I have to live with myself ALL my lifetime, whereas I only live with my >employer SOME of it.) I, on the other hand, let my beard grow... and the resultant lack of shaving-time decreases the period during which I have to look at myself in the mirror. > >I totally respect your right to differ. Most gracious of you. >>>>> >>>>>It isn't about 'just in case' anyway. It is about the habits of a >>>>>lifetime, which do no harm... >>>> >>>> Hmmmmmmm... it reminds me of a man of sixty saying 'I've thought this >>>> way >>>> about it ever since I was a lad of five.' >>>> >>>> On the one hand... it shows a five-year-old who has insights beyond his >>>> years and that is good. >>>> >>>> On the other hand... it shows a sixty-year-old who cannot see something >>>> differently than a five-year-old and that is... perhaps not-so-good. >>>> >>>"Except ye become as one of these, ye shall not enter the Kingdom of >>>Heaven." >> >> My concerns, Mr Dashwood, are - at the moment - more concerned with life >> *before* death rather than life after. > >Hahaha! Good response... :-) Glad you enjoyed... feel free to use it (appropriately cited, of course). >>> >>>> It might be that, once in a while, all things need to be questioned or >>>> re-questioned... including this statement, of course. >>>> >>>D'ja think so? :-) >> >> On that I can give you a definite 'maybe'. >> >Faior enough. I'll see your maybe and not raise... :-) Fair enough, indeed... which of us is showing aces and eights? DD
From: Chuck Stevens on 3 Mar 2006 10:29 "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood(a)enternet.co.nz> wrote in message news:46qgvsFcgl1gU1(a)individual.net... > No apology required. I just believe that one cheap shot deserves another. > I come from a long line of warmongers... :-) Parsimonious ones at that, it appears ... ;-) -Chuck Stevens
From: Peter Lacey on 3 Mar 2006 14:25
Pete Dashwood wrote: > > "Peter Lacey" <lacey(a)mts.net> wrote in message > news:440604BA.81BF8077(a)mts.net... > > Pete Dashwood wrote: > > > >> > >> The problem with Evangelism is that it seems to close the ears... > >> > >> Pete. > > > > Pot calling the kettle black, methinks! > > > > Peter L. > > Perhaps you could give an example to back up this calumny? Evangelist-types display several characteristics: they are smug, patronizing, and unwilling to answer questions that challenge their assumptions. Smugness: Feb. 27: Ah, the joys of maintaining source... :-) and your statement above ... Patronizing: You prefaced an answer with a remark such as "for the sake of intellectual argument, in the extremely unlikely event that ...": it had the distinct air of "all right, I'll answer your silly question just to shut you up". Whether or not that's how you felt, that's the impression I got. I can't apologize for having MY reaction to such things instead of someone else's. Unwillingness: see below. AFAIK you still haven't addressed my point. > > There is a subtle but important difference between not listening, and > listening but not being persuaded. > > In my correspondence with you, you were not persuaded. I listened to what > you said and tried to address it on several occasions. The concepts were > foreign to you, and you already had closed your mind to the possibilities. > Nevertheless, I invested time because you asked a fair question. I beg to differ. True, I am not persuaded, but that's because you didn't answer my point. (N.B., I lost a few days' posts after my previous effusion, so you may in fact have answered). The concepts are not foreign to me, although the implementation of them is as I've had only the slightest opportunity to try them out. They are hardly new; RAD has been around for a long time and I know that in the mid 80's I was trying to work out the possibilities of being a vendor of objects. I have no trouble at all with your methods and documentation requirements. The latter fill a need that I see even if you don't agree: surely that can't be bad. It does occur to me that there must be a practical limit to the size of the system that you can decompose to the "atomic" level you work at and still keep track of the whole. My point was, and is, that your stance of "never maintain source code" seems to imply that "maintenance of source code is never necessary". Somebody else pointed out that even if the components are totally accurate for all time and under all circumstances that the "glue" code that holds them all together can be incorrect. I only go a bit further in suggesting that the absolute certainty of correctness that you are claiming is not possible. The examples I gave come from the real world and illustrate the principle, notwithstanding that someone else said "they're programs, not components". > > That's OK. I wasn't evangelising anyway. Really don't care one way or the > other. :-) > > Pete. Your way of expressing yourself often sounds like you are. As you advised somebody else, don't take it seriously. As you state just above, you don't care anyway. Given that, I don't know why I bother querying you or responding to what you say. BTW: what happened to Robert Wagner? PL |